Niefelheim disasters--bug?

[Quietly]

Dedas said:
Well, as a philosophy teacher I just want to add that all speculation on what is to come in the future is based on what have passed, which really doesn't tell us anything about the future as it is the past and not the future. Even if you add millions of past events together it is still the past you are "foretelling" with. The future hasn't happened yet, it is still unknown.

And saying that one future is more "likely" to happen than another future is subjected to the same problem (the problem of induction), in that the predictions are based on past events. The future as a factor is still not precent in the calculations.

Saying that the sun will go up the next morning is not certain, but it is not even (logically) more or less probable. The universe could disappear, and alien armada could destroy it or whatever. Just because we haven't seen it before must not mean that it can't happen or even that it is more or less probable. I would say it could happen or it could not - 50%/50%.

You could of course choose to believe in probability (and it seems wise) as you see the "truth" of it all day happening. But it is just that - belief. I just happen to believe in logic.

Sorry for my "off-topicness", but I couldn't resist to say something about the fascinating thing that is probability.

What is this logic you believe in... you are engaging deconstructionism to such an extreme level, you are essentially denying the practice of the scientific method (making assumptions/predictions about an underlying physical reality based on observation).

The gamebreaking fallacy of this type of argument, is that it is only possible to express given language... and language necessitates an outside world to communicate with... an outside world is only possible through interpretation of our senses, and so your argument is fallacious.

You can say anything you want has a 50/50% chance of happening... in fact, you can _say_ it has a 300% chance of occurring. Your ability to say this, does not invalidate, or even affect in the slightest, the validity or invalidity of probabilistic statements.

Sorry, but I am from a math background, and hence have somewhat strongminded views on the matter... All of human language, experience, science... all are essentially more closely modelled as probabilistic distributions, rather than discrete answers. Every measuring device or method in science comes with an error range. Even things that people think of as discrete, such as a statement like "I saw one man run off into the forest!" are really more accurately modelled as a probability distribution... Poor eyesight, tricks of light, sudden onset of mental illness... all are very real, though small, observable probabilities, that would give you more information about the situation if you knew said distributions.

/unrant!

[Strages Sanctus]

The problem with the 100 heads in a row analogy it muddies the water becauase people are focused on the fact tht it is the same result 100 times in a row. You have to add that the odds are the same for any described 100 result sequence. The odds of 100 heads in a row is just the same as getting a head then a tail then a head then a tail etc.. over a hundred flips.

If you ask that question to the average person and most will say the odds of the latter are more likely when they aren't.

You will also get clustering and clumping of numbers since random probability is not a uniform occurence.
I work in an industry that is ruled by probability (the slot machine industry)

The most interesting probability riddle to me is the one about how likely is it that 2 people share the same birthday in a room of 50 people.

Edit: I should add I am not a mathematician. I suck at math horribly. I just invent stuff.

[Foodstamp]

I tried a test game playing niefelheim turmoil 3 luck 3 magic 3, sloth 1-2ish (can't remember) growth 3.

I got bad events nearly every turn of the game. The most common was "cursed for the rest of their lives" and barbarian hordes attacking provinces. I received good events as well, but there seemed to be something else at play.

I play Pangaea nearly exclusively, and always with turmoil 3 luck 3, and it is black and white as far as events go compared to my niefelheim game.

I am going to do another test game to see if it was just very abyssmal luck on my testing.

The only real difference besides it being two different nations I can think of is the cold scale, but surely the cold scale would not trigger the events I was getting.

[Epaminondas]

Foodstamp said:
I tried a test game playing niefelheim turmoil 3 luck 3 magic 3, sloth 1-2ish (can't remember) growth 3.

I got bad events nearly every turn of the game. The most common was "cursed for the rest of their lives" and barbarian hordes attacking provinces. I received good events as well, but there seemed to be something else at play.

I play Pangaea nearly exclusively, and always with turmoil 3 luck 3, and it is black and white as far as events go compared to my niefelheim game.

I am going to do another test game to see if it was just very abyssmal luck on my testing.

The only real difference besides it being two different nations I can think of is the cold scale, but surely the cold scale would not trigger the events I was getting.

I am glad someone else could duplicate my results, and that I was not hallucinating.